KARUNAKARAN Vs. SANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.76 of 1999 on the file of Sub Court, Cheyyar who challenges the order dated 20.9.2001 passed in I.A.No.235 of 2001 by the Sub Court, Cheyyar.

(2.) IN the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/first defendant was set export on 19.9.2000 and the first defendant came to know of the same only on 20.12.2000 and he has filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 19.9.2000. As there was a delay of 93 days in filing the petition under order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree, the defendant also filed an application to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.49 of 2001. The said application was posted on 8.8.2001 and the defendant neither represented in person nor through his advocate. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendant was dismissed on 8.8.2001. The first defendant filed another application in I.A.NO.235 of 2001 to restore the order of dismissal dated 8.8.2001 and to restore the application in I.A.49 of 2001 and the same came to be dismissed by order dated 20.9.2001 and the said order is being impugned in this civil Revision Petiton.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that there was no truth in the averments stated in the affidavit filed by the defendant and only with a view to drag on the proceedings, the defendant remained ex parte and then filed an application to set aside the order of dismissal. The very same reasons were set out in the counter filed by the defendant before the trial Court also.